@Roklimber: Of course! These mad Swedish scientists have concocted a brilliant evil scheme -- an airplane that steals our precious sunlight, and will fly non-stop (in fact, unstoppably!) around the world, plunging all of humanity into perpetual darkness! Truly, we are doomed.
That plane really is beautiful, and impressive. It looks like something from the early days of aviation, which seems entirely appropriate. :)
I remember watching a video of a solar-powered plane in flight (probably posted on io9 a while ago... :P) It was amazing how absolutely silent it was while slicing through the air. The whole idea of solar-powered flight seems so dreamy and surreal -- not entirely practical, perhaps (at least at this early stage!) but beautiful and wonderful nonetheless. #ecology
I'm down with this idea. I mean, if you're going to have massive stretches of asphalt to park on, you may as well put something that'll generate some energy on it as well instead of something that's just going to absorb heat and radiate it when the sun goes down.
Google already has this at their headquarters in Mountain View, complete with cables hanging down for electric cars to charge with. Of course, they're flat awnings, not cool artificial trees.
It might give you a few extra feet of driving range. These designers need to learn some math and physics before setting pen to paper. Cars are heavy, and use way more energy than people realize. Fill your tank today? Its about 13 megawatts.
@Timothy Wilson: I think you're overreacting. Even understanding that today's solar panels are incredibly inefficient, I don't think you're taking into account the variables that might act in favor of a solution like this, like charging time and surface area of the panels that may be dedicated to your vehicle, or even better, charging from in-ground battery for those times when the lot is empty.
There are ways to make something like this work - you just have to keep thinking about it. In principle I agree with your comment, I just think that dead-ending it doesn't get us anywhere. :)
This is a nice idea with some flaws. Multi level parking structures will of course not benefit from this kind of design. the only place I see 'flat' parking lots are (some) malls, & retail centers like walmart. Tulsa is not considered a large city (but is the second largest in OK) and has many multi level parking structures.
Plus what do we do with all the real trees that are already there? What is the possible affect the environment if we cut them down?
@justsomereportingguy: The idea has merit simply because implementation will not be instantaneous. Have the trees on the top level for people who are early adopters, and the other carbon burners can park in the shade.
Outside of big cities, or especially in the midwest where real estate is more plentiful, there are few parking structures, and parking lots for miles and miles.
And really, its more of a proof of concept, because at the present tech level, those sculptures couldn't charge one car, let alone multiple cars.
@Boas_MC: Why not have some of each? There will always be some people who don't want to use public transit no matter how effective it is. However, along with EVs we should also create the infrastructure to power them. In the US, the biggest obstacle to making our transportation greener and more effecient is the design of our cities and suburbs which tend to favor automobiles. New cities and suburbs should be designed to favor public transportation, walking, bicycling, and EVs.
I mean honestly, if you're going to poo poo EV (which frankly, battery technology has come a long way and has a long way to go, and given the sheer number of sustainable methods you can use to charge those batteries versus the impact of harvesting the materials to go into a battery that will have years of use life I think one outweighs the other) and then poo poo mass transit in the same breath - the solution is what? Status quo?
"I am getting tired with people pushing electric cars as being green."
Of course, "green" electric cars are also mostly powered by 50-100 year old coal burning generating stations, very inefficiently. Not nearly as green as a modern conventional petrol vehicle, of course.
People don't care about reality though. Since they can't see where the energy for en electric car comes from, they can just pretend that they're "emissions-free" and go about their business of feeling superior.
-Kle.
@Bill-Lee: "New cities and suburbs should be designed to favor public transportation, walking, bicycling, and EVs. "
No, they shouldn't. We don't live in a tyranny here, cities and suburbs should be designed they way people actually want them to be, instead of the way someone else thinks would be best for them.
Cars didn't create the current suburban/urban landscape, they merely allowed people to have things the way they wanted in the first place.
-Kle.
@Klebert L. Hall: You're ignoring the fact that, historically, people have actually not really been given the choice about what kind of built environment they live in. Planners and developers have come up with their own ideas about what people want, and then figured out ways to market these visions to make people want them. By your reasoning, people in many parts of the country have indeed been living in a tyranny - the tyranny of the tract suburb. I find it very difficult to believe that what people really "wanted in the first place" is to spend 1, 2, and even 3 hours of each day navigating a stop-and-go slog just to get to and from work.
For a very long time in the US - with the exception of already-established cities (whose immense popularity as measured by population, by your reasoning is inexplicable) - what planners and developers decided is that people should be given low-density housing tracts separated from all other functions of life (shopping, public gathering, working, etc.). This was, of course, made possible in large part by the rise of the private motorized vehicle. But as cities such as Sacramento have recently demonstrated, when you build relatively dense settlements, close to a variety of services and convenient to public transportation, people flock to them. In fact, the real problem might be that because there are not enough of these highly desirable areas, the majority of home buyers are unable to afford them.
In short, you are mistaking what is for what is desirable, from a policy, human, and even individual perspective.
@Klebert L. Hall: Do you have some numbers on that? Regarding the efficiency of petrol vehicles versus coal-powered electricity? Or are you just guessing?
@Boas_MC: "In short, you are mistaking what is for what is desirable, from a policy, human, and even individual perspective."
No more than you are. There are plenty of people who don't want to live in cities, and very few of them have 1, 2, or 3 hour commutes to work. Those commutes only really exist in a handful of major urban areas in the US. Mostly ones where the road network is lousy.
There are also plenty of people who do want to live in cities, I don't think they should be forced to live outside the cities any more than the converse.
-Kle.
@Klebert L. Hall: Not living cities doesn't preclude walkable places or even ones that are amenable to public transportation. My parents, for instance, live in one of the most rural counties in California, but the town they live in is set up such that people can generally walk to work and to take care of pretty much all their day-to-day needs.
But I'm wondering, based on your initial comment in this thread - do you equate planning with tyranny? Because suburbs are some of the most heavily planned spaces in this country. To me, the way they were planned is pernicious. But planned they are, nonetheless. Planned by powerful men, with precious little input from the people who would come to occupy them.
(PS: I really wish editing comments wouldn't wipe out all the HTML, including the reference to the post I'm replying to.)
Honestly, if most of the people in a town can walk to work, that makes it seem like a tiny city, to me. I really prefer not having to see my neighbors unless I try.
I'm not very fond of planning at all, actually - it kind of destroys the concept of property ownership. In general, I prefer less planing to more planning.
What you think of as a suburb and what I think of as a suburb are different, probably because of where we live. Suburbs in places like DC and California are often indeed horrible places (I have family in LaJolla, so I'm out there pretty often, and DC is an easy weekend trip). I think that has more to do with the suffocating degree of government regulation in places like that than anything else, though.
Here in R.I. , suburb planning tends to be limited to commercial, residential, or industrial zone, lot size minimum x, all streets should be through streets w/o a variance.
We do have some of those horrible planned tract communities these days, but it still isn't the norm.
I concur about the HTML thing, the new commenting systems seems a little wonky in it's code.
-Kle.
There is no reason not to have stuff like this particularly around where I live in Florida. It is just SILLY not to have cars with solar paneled roofs here, for example.
@Log1c: Not necessarily. If the trees don't rotate, having different panels at different angles will help when the sun is at different places during the day and year.
@redqueenmeg: Nope. The panels should track the sun. If you want X amount of energy, Build X amount of solar panels and move them, rather than build X+Y amount of solar panels but get only X amount of energy out.
11/06/09
BTW, can we fix this image system? It's really annoying to browse photos with. #ecology
11/06/09
11/06/09
I want in. #ecology
11/06/09
And that's how the Mayans will be proven right... #ecology
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
I remember watching a video of a solar-powered plane in flight (probably posted on io9 a while ago... :P) It was amazing how absolutely silent it was while slicing through the air. The whole idea of solar-powered flight seems so dreamy and surreal -- not entirely practical, perhaps (at least at this early stage!) but beautiful and wonderful nonetheless. #ecology
11/06/09
11/06/09
(My apologies to IO9. I'm starting to talk like my step son) #ecology
11/06/09
07/28/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
There are ways to make something like this work - you just have to keep thinking about it. In principle I agree with your comment, I just think that dead-ending it doesn't get us anywhere. :)
07/27/09
Plus what do we do with all the real trees that are already there? What is the possible affect the environment if we cut them down?
07/27/09
Outside of big cities, or especially in the midwest where real estate is more plentiful, there are few parking structures, and parking lots for miles and miles.
And really, its more of a proof of concept, because at the present tech level, those sculptures couldn't charge one car, let alone multiple cars.
07/27/09
Do you have any idea the type of chemicals that go into manufacturing a battery? It makes a nuclear powerplant look green (which it is by the way)
Not to mention the HUGE strain this will place on our already stretched infrastructure!
Or does nobody remember the rolling brownouts of the late 90's? and that was from one to many air conditioners running that summer!
07/27/09
07/27/09
The GENERAL public. I mean there's the public, and then there's the GENERAL public.
Or do you enjoy sitting next to a homeless man who just urinated AND defecated all over himself while being passed out?
Me neither, and I was the one who had to clean that mess up.
07/27/09
07/27/09
I mean honestly, if you're going to poo poo EV (which frankly, battery technology has come a long way and has a long way to go, and given the sheer number of sustainable methods you can use to charge those batteries versus the impact of harvesting the materials to go into a battery that will have years of use life I think one outweighs the other) and then poo poo mass transit in the same breath - the solution is what? Status quo?
07/28/09
"I am getting tired with people pushing electric cars as being green."
Of course, "green" electric cars are also mostly powered by 50-100 year old coal burning generating stations, very inefficiently. Not nearly as green as a modern conventional petrol vehicle, of course.
People don't care about reality though. Since they can't see where the energy for en electric car comes from, they can just pretend that they're "emissions-free" and go about their business of feeling superior.
-Kle.
07/28/09
"New cities and suburbs should be designed to favor public transportation, walking, bicycling, and EVs. "
No, they shouldn't. We don't live in a tyranny here, cities and suburbs should be designed they way people actually want them to be, instead of the way someone else thinks would be best for them.
Cars didn't create the current suburban/urban landscape, they merely allowed people to have things the way they wanted in the first place.
-Kle.
07/28/09
For a very long time in the US - with the exception of already-established cities (whose immense popularity as measured by population, by your reasoning is inexplicable) - what planners and developers decided is that people should be given low-density housing tracts separated from all other functions of life (shopping, public gathering, working, etc.). This was, of course, made possible in large part by the rise of the private motorized vehicle. But as cities such as Sacramento have recently demonstrated, when you build relatively dense settlements, close to a variety of services and convenient to public transportation, people flock to them. In fact, the real problem might be that because there are not enough of these highly desirable areas, the majority of home buyers are unable to afford them.
In short, you are mistaking what is for what is desirable, from a policy, human, and even individual perspective.
07/28/09
07/28/09
Well, it's one heck of a lot less efficient than burning the coal in the car...
Transmission losses are a pain in the butt.
The ICE isn't particularly efficient, though it is quite low-pollution these days.
-Kle.
07/28/09
No more than you are. There are plenty of people who don't want to live in cities, and very few of them have 1, 2, or 3 hour commutes to work. Those commutes only really exist in a handful of major urban areas in the US. Mostly ones where the road network is lousy.
There are also plenty of people who do want to live in cities, I don't think they should be forced to live outside the cities any more than the converse.
-Kle.
07/29/09
But I'm wondering, based on your initial comment in this thread - do you equate planning with tyranny? Because suburbs are some of the most heavily planned spaces in this country. To me, the way they were planned is pernicious. But planned they are, nonetheless. Planned by powerful men, with precious little input from the people who would come to occupy them.
(PS: I really wish editing comments wouldn't wipe out all the HTML, including the reference to the post I'm replying to.)
07/29/09
Honestly, if most of the people in a town can walk to work, that makes it seem like a tiny city, to me. I really prefer not having to see my neighbors unless I try.
I'm not very fond of planning at all, actually - it kind of destroys the concept of property ownership. In general, I prefer less planing to more planning.
What you think of as a suburb and what I think of as a suburb are different, probably because of where we live. Suburbs in places like DC and California are often indeed horrible places (I have family in LaJolla, so I'm out there pretty often, and DC is an easy weekend trip). I think that has more to do with the suffocating degree of government regulation in places like that than anything else, though.
Here in R.I. , suburb planning tends to be limited to commercial, residential, or industrial zone, lot size minimum x, all streets should be through streets w/o a variance.
We do have some of those horrible planned tract communities these days, but it still isn't the norm.
I concur about the HTML thing, the new commenting systems seems a little wonky in it's code.
-Kle.
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09